Political machinations on show as Scrutiny Week comes up for review

Analysis - Scrutiny Week over the past three years has aimed to rake government spending over the coals, but politics - as ever - seems to have got in the way.

With the election coming, the final edition of this experimental new approach to examining government spending is again up for review.

The opposition leader has voiced criticism alongside an openness to change, but some may well question where the blame lies.

The setup is aimed at benefitting the opposition, but their MPs have often clashed more with the chairs running the committees for the way they have been policing the hearings than with the ministers and departments they are meant to be scrutinising.

This could indicate four difficulties: potentially politicisation by the chairs; lack of effective prosecution from the opposition MPs; ministers and agency heads being too clever to be caught out; or rules and logistics getting in the way.

The real answer is probably a mix of all four, depending on the mix of personalities involved in each committee and how the rules are being interpreted.

Speaker Gerry Brownlee confirmed it would be discussed by the Standing Orders Committee, which produces a report every three years towards the end of the Parliamentary term on changes to procedure.

He told RNZ the main benefit of doing things this way was a more condensed scrutinising without the distractions of Parliament's usual sitting process.

"It's not for me to determine how successful that's been. I think that's for members ... I wouldn't presume to make any comment about how members might be viewing that process."

Scrutinising Scrutiny Week: Politicians weigh in

Labour's leader Chris Hipkins was quick to point at rules, logistics, and politicisation.

"Ministers are back to appearing for a very short amount of time before the committees. That wasn't what was intended. The point of having a dedicated Scrutiny Week where Parliament does not sit was so that ministers didn't have other responsibilities to attend to," he said.

Having scrutiny jammed into one week had also not worked as hoped.

"There's some real logistical challenges ... when estimate scrutiny was spread over three or four weeks, which is what it used to be, then actually it was more manageable in many cases."

But there have been some missed opportunities, like the hour-and-a-half Statistics session wrapping up about 20 minutes in because MPs ran out of questions.

The Leader of the House, National's Louise Upston, pushed back on Hipkins' claims about the length of time ministers were appearing for.

"Ministers are definitely appearing for significantly longer than they ever used to," she told RNZ.

"Look - it's really challenging as a minister ... I had six different hearings to prepare for in that particular week, so I think it's designed to put us through our paces and it provides a real focus."

She put the ball squarely in the opposition's court.

"Bluntly, I don't think the opposition has done the work they needed to this week," she said. "Last year I actually think it was far more successful than it was this year, and I would say the difference is the effort that has gone on for those sitting around the table.

"It was a bit underwhelming, a bit boring, and it just didn't really feel as if the opposition showed up as we thought they might in the scrutiny of the Budget a couple of months out from an election.

"When I was in opposition we would get really excited about this particular opportunity to scrutinise ministers on their estimates, and there was a huge amount of preparation that would go into ensuring that we could."

She said as Social Development Minister it felt like the opposition spokespeople had "written a press release before they came in, asked the question that was relevant to that press release, and then felt like that was job done".

"It's a very big vote, a very complex vote, lots of areas that I would have expected to get questions and didn't - so I kind of left there thinking, what just happened? ... It just felt flat this year."

Upston is one of the MPs who form the Standing Orders Committee, chaired by Brownlee, who are expecting to deliver a report full of changes around August.

From what she'd seen, the chairs - who are largely government backbenchers - had always given opposition MPs the "lion's share of the questions".

But Green MP Ricardo Menendez March - also on the Standing Orders Committee - said during one scrutiny hearing he attended, the chair had answered a question on a minister's behalf.

"I also think that chairs trying to pivot from continuous lines of questioning from opposition, to handing out a patsy to a government member to interrupt the flow of questions, puts again the whole exercise into into question."

He said government backbenchers should be using scrutiny more to highlight the concerns of constituents, rather than "use it as a platform to hand time to the ministers to speak off what the government is trying to progress.

However, he said the concept of a dedicated week for scrutiny was "critical to a thriving democracy" and he hoped it would continue with rules changes "so that it can better serve its purpose".

He said there did not seem to be enough time, with some ministers tending to give long-winded or vague answers, or officials reading responses that had already been provided in writing.

A different problem had also emerged this week, with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford's revelation of officials providing misleading information to ministers over the viability of a multi-million-dollar project that ended up being scrapped.

March said it was an important matter that needed attention, but had ended up taking the spotlight - and it would have been better scrutinised in a separate committee inquiry.

"Members, including government back benchers, were not aware of the issue and had to basically read the documents that got put in front of us while trying to ask questions of the issue at the very same time. It shows that actually we need a collaborative approach to then pursue and scrutinise this issue, outside of Scrutiny Week."

Machinations and playing to the camera

The logistics are not helped either by what goes on outside Parliament.

Hipkins himself was making his comments from 12.45pm as part of a policy launch in Upper Hutt - some half an hour away from Parliament.

This was followed by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's 'fireside chat' in Christchurch at 1pm; there was a 1pm announcement from Ministers Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop in the Hutt Valley; and Minister James Meager had one also in Lower Hutt at 2pm.

All this on the busiest day of the year's only Scrutiny Week, when newsrooms are already starved of resources and public attention is limited - something politicians themselves will be keenly aware of.

Opposition MPs at scrutiny hearings hoping to make headlines - or ministers hoping to avoid them - can easily resort to bickering and finger pointing, while a genuine constructive effort can hand their opponents an advantage.

A middle ground seems the most effective, as when Labour's Ayesha Verrall [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/535680/health-commissioner-to-seek-apology-after-cooking-the-books-accusation grilled Health NZ's Lester Levy, and got Shane Reti to admit National's cancer drugs plans should have been better communicated.

Then there was Treasury's promise to Green co-leader Chloe Swarbrick to report on offshore carbon credit projections for meeting climate commitments, which paid political dividends this year.

But such wins seem too often outweighed by the political machinations of one party or another, or the complicated machinery of government - here's hoping for improvements next time round.